Abortion vs Your Religious Beliefs

[Dudde]

They are not seperable, however... cells and internal environment are part of a larger organism that biology organizes this way:

 

...

this differs from a fertilized egg because the egg can be extracted and survive on its own? I'm not sure I follow this example

[jryan]

...

this differs from a fertilized egg because the egg can be extracted and survive on its own? I'm not sure I follow this example

 

To the fertilized egg the womb IS the external environment because the egg does not share the genetic code of the surrounding organ. It is therefor a separate organism.

[Sisyphus]

Well, no, a "soul" would exist without a mortal bond, so the death of the body doesn't effect the existence of the soul. The fate of that soul differs from religion to religion from an after-life to reincarnation. As such, a religious belief in a soul would lesson the blow of a loss of a body.

 

You'll have to forgive me, since you seem to have a specific religious notion in mind that I'm not familiar with, so I don't really know what you're talking about here. So your notion of a soul is just nature and not nurture? The "real you" is totally unaffected and unrelated to the life you live? Alright. I still don't see what this has to do with anything.

 

Absent a soul, however, each unique person created is lost forever. For some reason that is supposed to make the waste of such persons more acceptable.

 

Talk about a ridiculous strawman. If you don't believe in supernatural, unchanging souls, you're a murderer? Or something?

 

Unless you mean "doesn't believe that a person deserving of human rights exists immediately after fertilization," in which case, you are once again begging the question. It's not a waste of a person if it isn't a person. Do you really not understand that the argument is not about whether to kill people, but whether it IS a person?

 

Biologically, "what that string will come to represent" is present at conception. The "nature" is fulfilled at that point.

 

Really? Genes determine eye color. What color eyes do zygotes have?

 

I never said it didn't. Though everything after conception would be considered "nurture"

 

Begging the question again, in the same way, by establishing the beginning of "nurture" at that point, and not before or after. Why? Because you have already defined the beginning of personhood as that moment. But that is precisely what is at issue. Do you see the circular logic?

 

At what point do you start counting the nurture?

 

I don't. I'm interested in what a person is, not how they came to be that way. However, I suppose I could go back to the beginning of the universe, to trace back a chain of causality that leads to what you and I are today.

 

They are developing from conception to death,

 

And again...

 

there is no end point to development.

 

Or beginning!

 

Drawing a line anywhere along that path of development is strictly arbitrary.

 

Agreed!

 

Who would you have define the terms? And how do they define them?

 

That's what the whole debate is about. Defining what a person is, and what moral significance personhood holds.

 

Sure I do, and I find it to be self evident, but feel free to explain why you see it differently than me.

 

And I similarly hold if self-evident that a single-celled organism is not in the same moral category as a person. However, I don't have to prove that to you, since my position does not demand that everyone be forced into the exact same moral viewpoint, just that they acknowledge that there is no single, objectively correct viewpoint.

 

No, 5 is an aspect of what is lost in an abortion, but it is not a legal grounds for outlawing abortion.

 

The "selfhood" is not lost in abortion, since that requires thought and awareness, and what is destroyed has never possessed those things. If it was, I would support outlawing it. But again, I don't know why you're bringing legal precedent into this. This is about what laws ought to exist, not what laws do exist.

 

That is an illogical assertion on your part as the pro-lifers want to draw the definition from conception, which encapsulates 100% of the life cycle. At no point do they promote death. They draw the line right at the bginning of life, which is not arbitrary.

 

The rest later.

 

I say that pro-lifers want the government to define a specific point when life begins, and enforce it for everyone.

 

You say, no they don't! They want the government to define a specific point when life begins, and enforce it for everyone!

 

What? You're saying exactly what I'm saying you're saying, and exactly what you (bizarrely) accused pro-choice advocates of doing. Your only argument here seems to be, "but I'm RIGHT!"

[The Bear's Key]

And of course we're kind of beating around the bush a bit too. We can't actually start picking a defining line until anyone adamantly opposed to abortion can agree to meet us in the middle.

Yeah, definitely. A couple people like your girlfriend and waitforufo seem reasonable enough to consider the particulars in our stance even if we all disagree.

 

So in essence...

 

We're considerate to both mother and the unborn, preferring to leave government out until a trimester most people can agree on. Besides that, most of us likely wouldn't ever consider abortion for ourselves. So we're respectful of people who act differently.

 

But usually it seems those who fancy themselves "pro-life" solely consider the unborn. With a few exceptions as I stated above.

 

Why's it "pro-life" though? I suspect it's crafty politics. 1) A reliable vote-getter, 2) ties in religion, 3) and opponents by default would be viewed as "pro-death". Such labels fit the Right's apparent strategy/pattern of kill three birds with one stone.

 

 

...definition of "person" (Merriam-Websters):

........

6 : one (as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties

........

#6 is troubling to me, and to other pro-life advocates, specifically because it puts the choice of who is and is not a person into the hands of the government.

But law has this in common with science: it defines its own terms so everyone's on the same page. It doesn't matter what everyone or the dictionary thinks, it matters how it's been pre-defined for use in law.

 

As for it being troubling to pro-life advocates, I don't see them opposing/protesting the government's labeling of a corporation as a legal person, via the Supreme Court -- far before the New Deal era laws (which plenty of them do oppose, although it helps life).

 

 

Doesn't morality have to have a rational transition into society through laws?

Not necessarily. I may think it is immoral to eat meat, but no need to make it illegal.

I think Phi for All meant a natural transition, i.e. to decide whether it's reasonable to even pursue by law, weighed vs advantages/disadvantages, feasibility, real cases before the judge, etc.

 

 

Absent a soul, however, each unique person created is lost forever. For some reason that is supposed to make the waste of such persons more acceptable.

Opinion. A flawed one at that. Do you feel that if suddenly you learned people didn't have souls then you'd care not one bit for anyone -- or the welfare of strangers?

 

 

That is an illogical assertion on your part as the pro-lifers want to draw the definition from conception, which encapsulates 100% of the life cycle. At no point do they promote death.

So none of the pro-lifers are for the death penalty or war?

 

 

The reason for this rests in the biological definition of Life. Your individual cells, once differentiated, no longer meet the definition of Life individually.

Not true, it does. You're thinking of an organism, not life. Also, look at the first citation linked to in Wikipedia's entry: The Seven Pillars of Life, for a clue of how life's not easily defined.

 

 

No, it IS and individual up until the rare point that it is not... at which point it is two or more. Isn't that the standard method of developing knowledge in science? We KNOW

That's where you err. Science doesn't know, it merely predicts, describes, and runs tests for consistency (plus high levels of accuracy).

Edited March 11, 2010 by The Bear's Key
added bits

[Dudde]

Why's it "pro-life" though? I suspect it's crafty politics. 1) A reliable vote-getter, 2) ties in religion, 3) and opponents by default would be viewed as "pro-death". Such labels fit the Right's apparent strategy/pattern of kill three birds with one stone.

 

Not necessarily, I think the terms to be pretty apt

 

Pro-life: no abortion, life is too precious, pure and simple. A few give way to certain horrible scenario's, but for the most part, pro-life, no choice

 

pro-choice: Does not advocate abortion or death, merely the freedom to choose what's right for their own situation.

 

I know several pro-lifers who accuse me of wanting to kill babies, but it's simply not true - I just want their dirty hands off my personal choices

[waitforufo]

What you feel is irrelevent to the fact that you're taking rights from those who don't know you and who may believe things that you yourself do are immoral, and doing all this without even caring to learn their stories and reasonings

 

Nobody I've ever met who was pro-choice ever advocated getting abortions, and several I know personally volunteer to teach safe sex as well as much better alternatives to abortion - personally I know someone very closely who believes strongly in abortion who became pregnant with a child she didn't want, knew she couldn't take care of and never wanted to see the father of the child again. Contrary to knee-jerk reactions, she spent months trying to find any gay/lesbian couples, couples who can't have children, etc. who would want to have a son they may not otherwise have (this child ended up going to close friends of the family who wanted a baby but were unable to produce)

 

It's always been the pro-life crowd conjuring images of teens getting abortions every weekend and the like, in reality, the decision is almost always much more difficult, and has quite a few negative health impacts on the woman usually

 

 

 

Show me a post were I said abortion should be illegal? I did say I felt that most abortions performed today are immoral. I don’t think it’s a good idea to legislate morality in many cases. Society however should however have a cultural sense of morality.

[Dudde]

Show me a post were I said abortion should be illegal? I did say I felt that most abortions performed today are immoral. I don’t think it’s a good idea to legislate morality in many cases. Society however should however have a cultural sense of morality.

 

My mistake, I meant to replace "you" with "one" - it was not directed as a personal attack, rather, it's a common argument I hear against abortion in reasons to ban it.

 

Of course you have a right to believe most abortions these days are immoral, and I agree that there are probably women are using it as birth control, which is infuriatingly against what my arguments are for - however, they have that choice, whether I like it or not, and I certainly wouldn't attack (or kill) anyone for believing otherwise.

[Mr Skeptic]

No, it IS and individual up until the rare point that it is not... at which point it is two or more.

 

Except of course those pesty chimeras that you keep forgetting about. So wrong wrong wrong, sorry try again.

 

Isn't that the standard method of developing knowledge in science? We KNOW that that egg is an individual until it demonstrates itself to be otherwise.

 

Wrong wrong wrong. In science we assume things to be true if it provides predictive values, until there is even a single counterexample.

 

Is there any other situation you can think of where you determine something to be undefinable because the standard definition only has only has a 99.6% chance of being true?

 

No, I don't consider something undefinable just because someone proposes a silly definition that happens to be wrong. And if a definition applies to only 99.6% of cases, I consider it wrong wrong wrong. A definition has to apply to 100% of the cases; that is the whole point of a definition. Definitions are one of the few things that we can be certain of.

 

No, none of your cells perform all functions necessary to be considered a life. They only appear to on a cursory glance and by dredefining the structure of an organism by defining the actual organism separate from it;s internal environment.

 

They are not seperable, however... cells and internal environment are part of a larger organism that biology organizes this way:

 

(taken from here)

 

There is a differentiation between organisms because at the basic level all cells in your body share the same genetic code while all facing the same external environment. In the case of the identical twins their differentiation is reversed... they share the same genetic code and exist in different external environments.

 

Again though, how does that make my cells not alive? They are not an organism any more than an egg is, I'll grant you that. But, you had said they are not alive, and now you change that to organism. Incidentally, cells can be grown in a culture outside of the organism they belong to.

 

I'm not using a private definition, I have linked you to the sources of my definition. You can feel free to post your hypothesis that a skin cell is a life in the biology forum and see what biologists say.

 

If you mean this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

And I showed that a skin cell meets the qualifications. Which specific qualification did you say was lacking? Oh right, you didn't.

 

---

 

And you also ignored chimeras again. Feel free to tell me how a chimera is two people any time now, or how your definition of person is wrong wrong wrong.

[The Bear's Key]

Not necessarily, I think the terms to be pretty apt

 

Pro-life: no abortion, life is too precious, pure and simple. A few give way to certain horrible scenario's, but for the most part, pro-life, no choice

 

pro-choice: Does not advocate abortion or death, merely the freedom to choose what's right for their own situation.

In a practical world, yes. (or maybe)

 

But not so certain in the political world...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life#Term_controversy

Pro-life and pro-choice individuals often use political framing to convey their perspective on the issues and, in some cases, to discredit opposing views. Pro-life advocates tend to use terms such as "unborn baby", "unborn child", or "pre-born child",[39][40] while some pro-choice advocates insist on scientific terminology (often distinguishing between a zygote, a blastula, an embryo, and a fetus, and objecting to "fetus" as a blanket term). Pro-life individuals may also prefer to refer to the pregnant woman as a "mother", while some pro-choice individuals consider this inappropriate, and some in the medical community may see its usage as insensitive and biased in certain narrowly defined contexts.[41]

[jryan]

Except of course those pesty chimeras that you keep forgetting about. So wrong wrong wrong, sorry try again.

 

What about the "pesty chimeras"? Why should I consider the natural joining of one child any different than a conjoined twin? It is a natural occurance, so as explained before, I have no problem with it. The fact that a person is a chimera also doesn't invalidate their individuality.

 

Are you arguing that a chimera shouldn't be considered an individual.

 

Wrong wrong wrong. In science we assume things to be true if it provides predictive values, until there is even a single counterexample.

 

Well, first I am saving that quote for use later because I doubt you allow much room for counterexamples in other debates on this site. Second, if the answer to "how many individuals?" has the answer of "at least one" I am all for protecting the individual or individuals in question.

 

Secondly, based on the definition of organism I discussed, the zygote is a single biological human before separation, and two individuals after separation. They share genetic code, space and environment before separation.. therefor it is an individual, in a strictly secular meaning.

 

Arguing from the position of a soul is a bit different because we are then talking about God and spirit and omniscience where anything is possible.

 

No, I don't consider something undefinable just because someone proposes a silly definition that happens to be wrong. And if a definition applies to only 99.6% of cases, I consider it wrong wrong wrong. A definition has to apply to 100% of the cases; that is the whole point of a definition. Definitions are one of the few things that we can be certain of.

 

If you want to take it that route I am perfectly fine with that as well. The zygote is an individual until such time that it is two or more individuals, biologically speaking. At some point in the future we may have stronger predictive abilities to know when a zygote, through genetics or environment, will split, and how many times it will split, at which point we could define a zygote as more than one individual... but right now we go with the definition we know.

 

 

Again though, how does that make my cells not alive? They are not an organism any more than an egg is, I'll grant you that. But, you had said they are not alive, and now you change that to organism. Incidentally, cells can be grown in a culture outside of the organism they belong to.

 

I'm not saying that cells aren't "alive" I am saying the are not a life. THese are two separate concepts, and when we are talking about individuals and human rights we are talking about "a human life".. that is to say an individual organism that is human.

 

If you mean this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

And I showed that a skin cell meets the qualifications. Which specific qualification did you say was lacking? Oh right, you didn't.

 

No it doesn't, because your skin cell doesn't meet the qualification as an organism. So which classification of organism is your skin cell? Is it a member of the prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, or animals? And why.

 

I would also suggest you read the definitions of each class before making your final decision.

 

And you also ignored chimeras again. Feel free to tell me how a chimera is two people any time now, or how your definition of person is wrong wrong wrong.

 

Chimeras should be treated no differently than conjoined twins because that is what they are. They are, however, a more complete joining of the two individuals. So how do conjoined twins work into your argument?

[Mr Skeptic]

What about the "pesty chimeras"? Why should I consider the natural joining of one child any different than a conjoined twin? It is a natural occurance, so as explained before, I have no problem with it. The fact that a person is a chimera also doesn't invalidate their individuality.

 

Are you arguing that a chimera shouldn't be considered an individual.

 

...

 

Chimeras should be treated no differently than conjoined twins because that is what they are. They are, however, a more complete joining of the two individuals. So how do conjoined twins work into your argument?

 

The simple fact of the matter is that you are wrong, or at least on your own, legally, morally, ethically, and etymologically speaking. No one considers certain types of chimeras two people, not if there is only one brain. Nor do people consider a recipient of a blood transfusion or an organ transplant to be two different people. Sorry.

 

Edit: Also there are no known cases of fraternal (dizygotic) conjoined twins. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00359.htm

Edited March 12, 2010 by Mr Skeptic

[Sisyphus]

Chimeras are generally indistinguishable from non-chimeras without genetic testing. The phenomenon wasn't even known about before the advent of blood typing, when it was discovered that some people have more than one blood type. I don't think any reasonable person could call them two people, just because they developed from two zygotes.

[jryan]

The simple fact of the matter is that you are wrong, or at least on your own, legally, morally, ethically, and etymologically speaking. No one considers certain types of chimeras two people, not if there is only one brain. Nor do people consider a recipient of a blood transfusion or an organ transplant to be two different people. Sorry.

 

Edit: Also there are no known cases of fraternal (dizygotic) conjoined twins. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/mole00/mole00359.htm

 

First thanks for the info on conjoined twins, I didn't know that.

 

Second, I have stated that chimera should be considered one individual even thought hey are made up of two individuals genetic code.. I also made that argument earlier that an organism can be differentiated by genetics or environment. Identical twins share genetic code but experience two separate environments, chimera have two of more genetic codes but share one external environment.

 

But are you saying that a chimera is not an individual? I am still not understanding how it is you think a chimera supports your definition of an individual.

 

Now feel free to start elaborating on your skin-cell-as-individual-living-being argument, now.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Chimeras are generally indistinguishable from non-chimeras without genetic testing. The phenomenon wasn't even known about before the advent of blood typing, when it was discovered that some people have more than one blood type. I don't think any reasonable person could call them two people, just because they developed from two zygotes.

 

I didn't call them two people.

 

From my previous post:

 

"What about the "pesty chimeras"? Why should I consider the natural joining of one child any different than a conjoined twin? It is a natural occurance, so as explained before, I have no problem with it. The fact that a person is a chimera also doesn't invalidate their individuality."

[Mr Skeptic]

What I'm saying is that chimeras are a single individual made from two different zygotes. I'm glad you agree. But, if you say each zygote is an individual person, where did one of those persons go? This of course is no problem for me since I don't consider the zygotes to be people, so I don't have a disappearing people problem.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Now feel free to start elaborating on your skin-cell-as-individual-living-being argument, now.

 

Sure, the skin cell is for the most part indistinguishable from a zygote, although granted it is smaller and has a different set of genes active and won't grow up to become a person later on. Of course those aren't differences that seem to have any relevance to personhood. My skin cell is alive, and it can be removed from my body and kept alive separately, just like a zygote. I never called it a being though, nor an organism.

[Dudde]

Sorry I didn't actually see this response til now,

Originally Posted by Dudde

...

this differs from a fertilized egg because the egg can be extracted and survive on its own? I'm not sure I follow this example

 

To the fertilized egg the womb IS the external environment because the egg does not share the genetic code of the surrounding organ. It is therefor a separate organism.

 

I don't accept this answer, you're denoting that a fertilized egg living inside the mother and with a direct attachment to suck nutrients out of her to *survive and grow* is a self sustaining life form and thereby a unique individual who's life is to be protected.

 

I'm fully for the notion that we should set a trimester limit for prerequisites in having an abortion, but your case eludes me as to why this organism is to be protected, whereas ringworms and virus' are to be removed immediately.

[jryan]

What I'm saying is that chimeras are a single individual made from two different zygotes. I'm glad you agree. But, if you say each zygote is an individual person, where did one of those persons go? This of course is no problem for me since I don't consider the zygotes to be people, so I don't have a disappearing people problem.

 

It doesn't go anywhere. If Suzy got Jane's heart and lungs I would still call her Suzy.

 

 

Sure, the skin cell is for the most part indistinguishable from a zygote, although granted it is smaller and has a different set of genes active and won't grow up to become a person later on. Of course those aren't differences that seem to have any relevance to personhood. My skin cell is alive, and it can be removed from my body and kept alive separately, just like a zygote. I never called it a being though, nor an organism.

 

You've mad a rather clumsy argument there on several fronts. First "for the most part" is meaningless and an admission that they are different. Second, that zygote is considered an organism, and your skin cell is not.

 

So you have admitted that your skin cell is not a zygote, and that your skin cell is not a person. You have not explained why the zygotic organism has no relevance to personhood, however, beyond "because in may be more than one person" which I do not find in the least bit compelling.

[Sisyphus]

It doesn't go anywhere. If Suzy got Jane's heart and lungs I would still call her Suzy.

 

Who are Suzy and Jane? There's only person there. While before (according to the premise that a zygote is a person), there were two. Neither one died, so what happened?

[jryan]

Who are Suzy and Jane? There's only person there. While before (according to the premise that a zygote is a person), there were two. Neither one died, so what happened?

 

Huh? Are you talking about chimera? How about you tell me which one's genetic code dominates and I'll tell you if one died.

[Mr Skeptic]

Huh? Are you talking about chimera? How about you tell me which one's genetic code dominates and I'll tell you if one died.

 

A chimera has living cells from two different zygotes. This can happen shortly after the zygote stage, or in the case of transplants and transfusions, well into adulthood. There is no dominant DNA -- the cells from one zygote will have that zygote's DNA and proteins, and the cells from the other zygote will have that other zygote's DNA. In the case of transplants and transfusions, we consider the owner of the brain to be the same person, regardless of what was transplanted where. In the case of natural born chimeras, we sane people never considered them to be separate persons.

[jryan]

A chimera has living cells from two different zygotes. This can happen shortly after the zygote stage, or in the case of transplants and transfusions, well into adulthood. There is no dominant DNA -- the cells from one zygote will have that zygote's DNA and proteins, and the cells from the other zygote will have that other zygote's DNA. In the case of transplants and transfusions, we consider the owner of the brain to be the same person, regardless of what was transplanted where. In the case of natural born chimeras, we sane people never considered them to be separate persons.

 

 

I know what a chimera is, and I don't consider them to be two individuals, as I said in my earlier statements. But it is possible for their to be one individual made up of two individuals.

 

We can also have a person who has multiple personality disorder, and even another person with the physically split brain have two separate personalities, with one dominant but the other capable of controlling extremities on it's own. These cases of multiple personalities are also considered one individual in my way of reasoning.

[mooeypoo]

I know what a chimera is, and I don't consider them to be two individuals, as I said in my earlier statements. But it is possible for their to be one individual made up of two individuals.

How can you not, though?

 

You take two women at the same stage of their pregnancy, where the zygote split. You (and medicine) cannot yet determine which one would yield healthy twins and which will yield a chimera. We can't know. It's not yet determined. But the zygote has split already. It's mutliplying, it's growing as *TWO* entities.

 

Is it still one life? If it is, then twins are also not "life" on their own until ..... when? If it is two lives/souls/whatever, then if it fails being twins and transforms to a chimera, a soul/person just died. Lost. Where did it go?

 

 

 

So I understand why it is a tough decision to be consistent in this case, but if you want to make sense, you need to try.

 

~moo

[jryan]

How can you not, though?

 

You take two women at the same stage of their pregnancy, where the zygote split. You (and medicine) cannot yet determine which one would yield healthy twins and which will yield a chimera. We can't know. It's not yet determined. But the zygote has split already. It's mutliplying, it's growing as *TWO* entities.

 

Is it still one life? If it is, then twins are also not "life" on their own until ..... when? If it is two lives/souls/whatever, then if it fails being twins and transforms to a chimera, a soul/person just died. Lost. Where did it go?

 

 

 

So I understand why it is a tough decision to be consistent in this case, but if you want to make sense, you need to try.

 

~moo

 

Well, first, so we are clear, chimeras result from a starting state of fraternal twins, not identical. There would be no way of telling if identical twins re-merged as the genetic code is exactly the same.

 

But I see no compelling argument to not protect the life or lives in the womb based on an overcomplicated consideration of how many lives it is or will end up being after various natural but unlikely scenarios that may happen happen.

[Sisyphus]

 

But I see no compelling argument to not protect the life or lives in the womb based on an overcomplicated consideration of how many lives it is or will end up being after various natural but unlikely scenarios that may happen happen.

 

For the umpteenth time, the argument is not whether to protect lives, but whether there are lives to protect. Your argument that there are is that those lives begin at an unambiguous, non-arbitrary point that can be identified. This has been demonstrated not to be the case. Hence, there is no longer an argument.

[jryan]

For the umpteenth time, the argument is not whether to protect lives, but whether there are lives to protect. Your argument that there are is that those lives begin at an unambiguous, non-arbitrary point that can be identified. This has been demonstrated not to be the case. Hence, there is no longer an argument.

 

There is no ambiguity, Sisyphus, and you and others have done nothing to change that fact. I have argued that the zygote is a living human being (or human organism), and the closest you can get to dissolving that unambiguous assertion is that it may become two or more human beings on a rare occasion, but never less than one.

 

So the argument of protecting life (or living human organism) from conception is unaffected by the claims of potential twins or chimeras as neither changes the fact that protecting the life as it exists in the womb is still protecting that life regardless of it's potential to be more than one.

 

When fraternal twins fuse they go from two lives to one, when identical twins split they go from one life to two. There is no ambiguity and you have failed to make a compelling case that there is sufficient ambiguity to invalidate the one life due to the possibility it may become two.

[Sisyphus]

And what is your argument that the zygote and specifically the zygote is the non-arbitrary point at which a living human being first exists? You keep asserting that, but I don't recall any actual arguments, per se. At least, nothing that can be said uniquely about the zygote, which is the whole point, since you are asserting that it is the one and only beginning of life.

 

The whole business with identical twins and chimeras are simply examples which, by their existence, prove certain assertions false. (Namely, that presence of genetic code represents individuality, that there is continuity of individuality from zygotehood, etc.) Your response has been that they don't count, because they are rare.

 

At a certain point this becomes repetitive. I don't find the assertions that the zygote is in the same category of things as a human being compelling. You don't find anyone else's' arguments compelling. Alright. Agree to disagree?

Edited March 16, 2010 by Sisyphus